contained herein as the objective is to now enjoin the swearing in of
soto. if any recipient of these documents can fax them to: 202
354-3392 asap and provide a confirmation that such task has been
accomplished to rjm so that the judge cannot claim invincible
ignorance of what rjm was seeking on 8/7/09, rjm would be most
grateful

cc://http://www.geocities.com/thirstforjustice/Categories_index(18USC3332(a))
8/7/09, b.32, c.,  m.   n.43 p.2

United States District Court
      for  the
District of  Columbia
Robert J. More, ISMA’s Campaign to Make the World Safe For Innocence
Once Again, Every Person God Can Still Justify Not Hating as Third
Party Plaintiff, All Those in Such Group Lacking the Use of Reason as
Next Friend
Petitioner/Plaintiff
V        Case #
Mr. L. Gainer - Sergeant at Arms of  the United States Senate, Ms
Nancy Erickson, Secretary of  the  United States Senate, Majority
Leader of  the United States Senate, Mr. Harry Reid, Supreme Court of
the United States Chief Justice John Roberts, any “Justice” of SCOTUS
who could issue the “oath” in the absence of  the Chief Justice

Respondents/Defendants

SECOND SUPERCEDING COMPONENT OF 8/6/09 OF  COMPLAINT OF  8/4/09,  TO
BE SUPERCEDED PRIOR TO 9/5/09 AND PERIODICALLY THEREAFTER WHICH IS
ACCOMPANIED BY A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTIFICATION OF  NON-CONSENT….

Introduction:
Based upon what has transpired since RJM overnight fed-exed the
initial component of  this complaint of 8/4/09 on 8/4/09 to this Court
which was received thereby at 10:47 a.m. on 8/5/09, RJM herein
incorporates by reference the entirety of the contents  of  the FIRST
SUPERCEDING COMPONENT OF 8/6/09 OF  COMPLAINT OF  8/4/09,  TO BE
SUPERCEDED PRIOR TO 9/5/09 AND PERIODICALLY THEREAFTER WHICH IS
ACCOMPANIED…. except those  contents a revised version of which is
contained herein, herein as if fully set forth herein.
The purpose of  this component of  this complaint is to add  the Chief
Justice of SCOTUS as a Defendant  to the case this document concerns
(“this case”) in order to enjoin any “swearing-in” (aka “oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution of  the (united) (United)  States
of America eliciting and remitting”) on 8/7/09 unless and until the
relief provided in the declaratory judgment sought herein would have
been provided.

Parties
Robert J. More  the Petitioner/Plaintiff in this case is a resident of
Chicago, IL who was the appellant in Appeal # 08-1263-cv in the CCA
2.
The Secretary of  the USS, Sergeant at Arms of the USS ,  and Majority
Leader of the USS are agents of  the USS named as
Respondents/Defendants in this case, along with the USS itself.
Chief Justice  of  the Supreme Court of the United States John
Roberts, any “Justice” of SCOTUS who could issue the oath in the
absence of  the Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
This Court possesses jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the
provisions of  28 USC 1331  (federal question) and 28 USC 2201 and
2202 (declaratory judgment).
Venue
There is no case RJM has read in which a House of Congress was listed
as a Defendant which had not been filed in the USDC for the District
of Columbia, so RJM presumes that this Court must be the appropriate
venue.

Facts
65. The developments that transpired on 8/6/09  in the adjudication of
this case will be chronicled in future versions of this complaint and
in other documents which will be composed as component parts of  the
injustice rectification project of  which this component of  the
complaint presently pending in this case is a component part.
66. The requirements of Local Rule 65.1 regarding the TRO of  8/7/09
have been satisfied as can be verified by this Court by its calling
RJM at 312 545-1890 and holding a TRO hearing prior to any swearing in
of S. Sotomaor to a position on the SCOTUS or by its calling the Clerk
of  the Supreme Court of  the u.S. of A. and speaking to the Deputy
Clerk Mary __________ there.
Prayer for Relief
RJM herein seeks to have the swearing in of  Sonia Sotomayor to the
Supreme Court of the U.S. by the SCOTUS Chief Justice and or any other
“Justice” of  such Court scheduled for 8/7/09   enjoined until the
evidence referenced herein supra can be read or otherwise entered into
the public record of   a new Senate Confirmation Proceeding  to be
conducted in  the Senate of   the united States of America based upon
her actual record as a federal judge and in  regard to the activity
conducted by her since she was nominated to a position on the SCOTUS,
as distinct from the record thereof which she has presented to the
Senate and the American Public, as the members of the public are
entitled to informed votes of their representatives and to know how
their representatives would have voted had they possessed truthful
answers, that is answers fully disclosing the information sought in a
given question contained  in the questionnaire that SS received from
the Senate Judiciary Committee (“questionnaire”) or to have this Court
sign a copy of  the accompanying “Motion and Proposed Order…
Unconstitutionality…RJM…” and subsequent to the procurement of  such
relief, to procure a declaratory judgment, declaring the following:

Declaratory Judgment Regarding Confirmation Proceedings in the United
States Senate of Judicial Nominees No  Senate vote on a confirmation
of any nominee for any federal judgeship shall ever be conducted in
the case of  any confirmation proceedings ever conducted in regard to
the nomination of a given nominee, unless and until individuals and/or
parties whose cases a given nominee would have adjudicated  in any
judicial theatre established pursuant to any law(s)  of  the united
States of  America or any political subdivision thereof which
adjudication(s) would  not have been listed as answers to the
questions included in any questionnaire which  a given nominee would
have received from, completed and submitted to -  as a requirement for
consideration of  a given judicial nominee’s qualifications for a
given judicial office for which he or she would have been nominated -
the members of  the Judiciary Committee  of  the Senate of  the united
States of America  (“SJC”) in a given instance, would have been
provided an opportunity to (present to the Senate  of  the United
States of America in such a )  – the entity responsible to ensure that
the authority and power of  the appointment of  federal judges would
not be vested solely in the Executive Branch of  the government
pursuant to the Appointments Clause of  the Constitution of the u.S.
of A. – evidence of  her conduct in cases which  would  not have been
included in the list of all cases in regard to  the adjudication of
which she  would have participated according to such a formula that no
evidence presented thereto would not end up in a public record of any
proceedings conducted in any confirmation of  a given nominee,  the
consideration of which by any given citizen who  could justifiably be
classified as  a “member” of  what  would constitute  at any given
juncture in human history, that component of  the population of  the
united States of  America to which reference could justifiably be made
as  the “public at large” and that component of  the world’s people
who would constitute the “mankind” for whose opinion the Author of the
Declaration of  Independence and its Signatories  manifested a
conspicuous concern to demonstrate a “decent respect” in refusing to
severe the bonds which had bound them to the English people without
providing an enumeration of  the causes which they asserted compelled
the separation(“citizen”) that no member of  the USS could justifiably
and legitimately claim that he or she would have been invincibly
(inculpably)  ignorant of  the evidence which would  have been
presented in a the proceedings conducted in a given nominee’s
confirmation hearing process of the judicial activity of a given
nominee by any and all citizens who would possess evidence of such
judicial activity in  regard to the adjudication of any case which
would not have been listed as a case in the adjudication of  which a
given nominee would have participated in any answers submitted to any
questionnaire the completion and submission of  which would have
constituted  a requirement for the procurement of a Senate vote on a
given nominee’s confirmation to a given federal judgeship and/or any
other relief which would eliminate the injury RJM will have incurred
if Sotomayor is confirmed without the evidence which RJM and Richard
Cordero possess of  her misrepresentations to the SJC and the activity
conducted by her in regard to the cases which were not included in the
list of cases in the adjudication of which she has participated as a
federal judge, and that no activity of  this Court in the adjudication
of  this case could ever be used to preclude, prevent and/or prohibit
RJM from filing any other legal proceeding in regard to the dispute
Appeal #08-1263 CCA 2 concerns, since RJM will not have been provided
a full and fair opportunity to resolve the issues such dispute
concerns in any proceeding conducted in the matters this complaint
concerns, tangential to such concerns as this complaint no doubt is.,
and any confirmation and/or appointment  not based upon the conducting
of  the confirmation hearings and vote conducted according to the
formula formulated herein supra shall be null and void and of no force
and effect.
(Note: order to procure a TRO enjoining any vote on the Sotomayor
nomination on 8/6/09, RJM will under protest consent to have the word
“united” capitalized in any TRO and/or declaratory judgment any court
would issue in regard to the matters this complaint concerns, subject
to permitting RJM to explain the reasons that RJM would insist that
such term be used only in lower case in any final formulation of  any
declaratory judgment which would be issued in regard to the matters
this document concerns)

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of  28 USC 1946, I
aver to the veracity of all factual averments in regard to which I
possess percipient knowledge contained herein and as to any averments
made upon information and believe, that I verily believe such
averments to be true.
Robert J. More

Robert J. More
P.O. Box 6926
Chicago, IL 60680
312 545-1890
anselm45@gmail.com


United States District Court
      for  the
District of  Columbia
Robert J. More
Petitioner
V        Case #
Sergeant at Arms of  the United States Senate L Gainer, Secretary of
the  United States Senate Erickson, Majority Leader of  the United
States Senate, Mr. Harry Reid,
Respondents

PETITION OF 8/7/09 PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 65.1  FOR ISSUANCE OF A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING ANY SWEARING IN OF JUDGE SONIA
SOTOMAYOR (“JSS”) TO A POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES (“SCOTUS”)  (“SWEARING IN…SS”)  UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS COURT
WOULD DECLARE THE VOIDNESS AND THE NULLITY OF THE SENATE VOTE TAKEN ON
8/6/09 TO CONFIRM SJJ TO A POSITION ON THE SCOTUS  AND ISSUE AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE ACCOMPANYING  “…SECOND
SUPERCEDING COMPONENT OF  8/7/09 OF COMPLAINT OF 8/4/09…”  TO  BE
ENTERED INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF  THE PROCEEDINGS  CONDUCTED IN
WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A SECOND CONFIRMATION HEARING AND VOTE OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE REGARDING THE NOMINATION OF SS

Now comes the Petitioner Robert J. More (“RJM”) to move this Court to
issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) according to the terms and
conditions included in the title to this document.
RJM herein provides notice that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of  the United States of America  has been informed to the extent it
was possible for RJM to inform him of  the filing and/or presentation
for filing  to this Court of  this document and the complaint to which
it corresponds, of  the filing and/or presentation for filing thereof,
via RJM’s providing to Deputy Clerk Mary ________at 202 479-3031 on
8/6/09 notice that a copy of this document would be posted at:
http://www.geocities.com/thirstforjustice/Sotomayor-Lawsuit prior to
any swearing in that would be conducted in regard to the Sotomayor
“confirmation” prior to the commencement of  any oral telephonic
hearing  and/or any other type of adjudication which would be
conducted in regard to issue of  the issuance of a TRO in the matters
this petition concerns (“these matters”) on 8/6/09.

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of  28 USC 1946, I
aver to the veracity of all factual averments in regard to which I
possess percipient knowledge contained herein and as to any averments
made upon information and believe, that I verily believe such
averments to be true.


Robert J. Moreivacy Poli 1